Essays, or discourses, vol. 4 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the SpanishFeijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Philosophy
Essays, or discourses, vol. 4 (of 4) : $b Selected from the works of Feyjoo, and translated from the Spanish
Feijoo, Benito Jerónimo
Spanish essays -- Translations into English
and legitimate, it is the most easy thing in the world, to define every
substantial entity whatever, because in order to do it, you have only to
observe its operations, give the most remarkable one a name, and define
it by that name. By the help of this instruction only, you may make every
peasant a consummate philosopher, and enable him to define the nature of
all the entities in the universe.
SECT. IX.
XXXIX. These reflexions answer no other purpose, than that of confronting
here and there a superficial and bastard schoolman, for all capable
people know and confess, that we are unable to give a definition of any
one substantial entity, except man. To what straight limits then is our
philosophy confined!
XL. But the misfortune is, that we have no certainty, that the general
received definition of a man, to wit, that he is a _rational animal_, is
a good and unexceptionable one; for we are clear it would not be a good
one, if this faculty appertains to other animals as well as him, and it
is matter of doubt whether it does or not; but I will not, nor cannot, in
support of this doubt, avail myself of the authority of Porphyrus, who in
his Treatise on Predicables, supposes God to be a rational animal; and
in order to distinguish between God and man, defines man to be a mortal
rational animal, because he thought that without the addition of the
word mortal, the definition would be applicable to God as well as man.
Neither will I avail myself of the authority of Aristotle, from whose
second book, De Sect. Pythagora, Jamblicus cites these words: _Animalis
rationalis aliud quidem est Deus, aliud autem homo._ But I may for this
purpose, avail myself of the authority of some Fathers, among whom is
St. Austin, who all affirm, that the angels are corporeal, or at least
have doubted of their incorporeality; to which doubt, appertains that,
of whether angels are rational animals, for in order to suppose them so,
there wants nothing but their being corporeal, and consequently it is
doubtful, whether the definition of rational animal, appertains solely to
man.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account